It’s when a theory that works fine suddenly fails to predict something accurately and instead of discarding the theory, its supporters change the standards of evidence to force it to work.

IIRC Simon Baron-Cohen’s idea is that girls are designed to navigate the social world and are better with people, and that boys are designed to figure out things and theoretical systems and are worse with people. I think in that book she just criticizes the evidence of sex differences he uses.

However, Greg’s example of Phlogiston does not seem to fit because they did change the theory to claim that Phlogiston had negative weight, although I don’t know the details so it might be that they claimed that only in the case of magnesium did Phlogiston have negative weight.

Will the analysis look at sexual dimorphism in different populations or, is sexual dimorphism, a) the same in all population groups; b) different but irrelevant to an HBD critique of the ideology of feminism? Or c) that’s just a silly irrelevant question!

It’s partly to do with time. When I was a laddy we were cheerfully told that our Ancient Briton ancestors had been head-hunters and cannibals. So when did it set in, this sentimental tripe about there being no cannibals? And where did this and your other items of intellectual ordure originate?

It is a trait reasonable in moderation, hanging on to an attractive idea in the face of contrary evidence. The contrary evidence may be what proves ephemeral. The base idea may need only modification, not rejection. If an evil dictator signs a noble and generous treaty against all expectation, it doesn’t mean we shut down Parris Island.

We don’t, and shouldn’t, reinvent our entire intellectual and philosophical framework every morning. We wouldn’t have time to make a sandwich, let alone research anything new. Those who are enthusiasts for each new theory supported by random scraps of evidence are also an impediment to cultural advance. There are many in the general public, and even some in the sciences, who are happy to abandon ideas too quickly. I think Education attracts this type, actually – folks who tout the theory du jour much like Bullwinkle “This time for sure!”

The problem with such loyalty to ideas arises pretty quickly. In the best of all possible worlds, we should all be happy to toss over our favorites at about the third go-round of disproof. As we are social beings, however, we have a lot to lose and little to gain by abandoning the ideas shared by our Chosen Peer Group. (Peer pressure is actually worse in adulthood, because we are in a self-selected rather than random population.) Similarly, there was fascinating discussion over at the Volokh Conspiracy on the utility of choosing one’s politics from one’s surroundings. Votes have small effect, after all, and we have to eat and find mates and protect resources in the real world. It sounds morally shoddy, but it has gotten us where we are.

As for the midget – one must ask the right question first: was Veeck’s aim to field a player who could draw walks indefinitely, or to get people to come look at his entertainments? The understanding shifts as clearly as his fences. There is overlap and ambiguity. Goethe’s Three Questions are apropos here.

Step 2) Refuse to allow your opponent to use any evidence that would weigh against this null hypothesis, because said evidence is the product of discrimination / the patriarchy / oppression and not reflective of true underlying facts.

Step 3) Given the limitations from step 2, demand that your opponent supply enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

The Veeck theory feels like a restatement of Popper’s falsification. If that’s accurate, I nonetheless find your version more accessible and impactful. I never tire of the colorful posts on this blog. Keep it up!

Getting back to the Veeck Effect of the Second Kind, that can be characterized as taking the most insignificant/incompetent/ungainly/laughable entity and harnessing it to achieve remarkable public relations success.

An example might be the Abecedarian Project, an isolated, not very well designed and controlled “experiment” in early childhood education from the early 70’s which has been trumpeted ever since as demonstrating the guaranteed, double-digit returns on investment from high quality pre-school programs, despite the ubiquity of all the real-world evidence against such a claim.